The Modern Art Idiocy

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. but as an Artist I coulden give a Rats Arse for those who havent the eyes to see what the Artist is trying to convey!
Tony Hancock's Sculpture Scene From The Rebel!
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 15-2-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

mahajohn;

I hate to say it but your last post
was bs.

Granted I do not have decades of
experience as you do, but have
recieved a couple of comissions.
I work primarily in illustration and not
so much in fine art anymore.

I will take my portrait work over
a Pollack anyday of the week. I
actually like Mondrian, there is
something that just hits me. I do
not know if it the form, color or
what but I just appreciate it.

Unfortunately your comment about
feeling sorry for those people, myself
included who are unable to grasp
and appreciate the works of Pollack
and so forth does nothing to advance
peoples want to understand art.
It is that arrogant attitude that drives
people away.

There is a very good film, "Pollock", with Ed Harris as Jack Pollock. Perhaps, seeing it would help some understand what abstract (informal) art is about.

Just for the crack! can anybody tell me why Michelangelo Painted Adam with a Navel? hehe do yea think he knew who his mother might of been!

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yeah the difference between Picasso and the schmucks today is that Picasso was insanely good at drawing anatomy at around age 16. He had pretty much mastered realism and went on to express himself in a novel way. No one can say that about the vast majority of modern 'artists,' who can barely form simple objects much less a landscape or a human being. Abstract and surreal art definitely has value, but not at $50+ million a painting. The whole modern art scene is filled with pedantry and self-aggrandizing critics. It is ridiculous and an insult to people with real talent.

I would like to point out something about art that hasn't yet been mentioned. Regardless of style, ALL ART IS AN ABSTRACTION.
Modern art obvously is abstract but then so is super and photo - realism. It's simply a matter of the viewer's perspective. Take a painting by Richard Estes, in reproductions you would swear they are color photographs, but upon close examination it becomes just fields of brushstrokes. Even a photograph is an abstraction because it is not the thing that it represents.
In many ways realistic artwork peaked with the super realists, there were no new mountains to climb there so the modern art movement went as far as they could in the opposing direction, breaking things down into simple components and emphasizing certain visual elements.
Rothko's explorations of color were SO simple, SO stripped down of everything else that what he created was very pure colors with nothing else to distract the viewer. He showed us how colors changed depending on what colors were around them (kind of like people are, yes?). In the end what he accomplished was to breathe life into color without using any references to the real world around us. To me that is an astonishing acheivement ( I can hear the sighs ).
Simplicity is a very, VERY difficult thing to accomplish in art. To strip things down to a bare essential and present it for the world to see. Japanese kanji characters are much the same - simple brushstrokes but with a very bold grace to them that breathes life into a symbol.
Everyone loves a sunset right? but all it is is just the sun, maybe a few clouds and the line of horizon. Yet somehow we find this breathtaking. It's the grand feeling of space and exquisite color that excites us, some of the very elements that Rothko used to create his paintings.
The very act of thought can often ruin the experience that the artist presents us. Much of modern art challenges us to remove our selves, our experiences and cultural bias from the viewing process. It asks us to meditate upon it.
This is the mental jump (or suicide if you like) that must be made in order to appreciate some works of modern art. It's something one experiences rather than understands.
You understand a sunset yet you don't consciously think that the earth is revolving, turning away from the sun while it speeds around it's orbit of it. Of course that would ruin it for you.
That is my suggestion for how to approach work such as Rothko's. Sure, you can analyze all you want but initially clear your preconceptions and allow yourself the chance to see it with new eyes. Once you have meditated on it then you can let your logical mind come back in to see what it has to add. It's kind of like making love, the less you think about it the better it is and the more "in the moment" one will feel.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Asktheanimals]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c18e64f08ea.jpg[/atsimg]

i see a womans genital with a little red pimple.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/383bc3d5494c.jpg[/atsimg]

i see life born out of darkness.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/829c9482edc1.jpg[/atsimg]

i see 5 different "life" in two other worlds.

Originally posted by telfyr


i see a womans genital with a little red pimple.



i see life born out of darkness.



i see 5 different "life" in two other worlds.

This is precisely what you shouldn't do when viewing a Rothko, trying to "see" things in it. It's just colors and shapes, deal with it

reply to post by Asktheanimals


art is never some one else its way to look at it.
it is always you're own view on it.
no matter what the artist meant by it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Imagine you were never told what art is, what good art is.

Click on masquas signature "My Paintings" and look. Then go back to the OP and look.

If you look with completely unbiased, uneducated, neutral eyes does Rothkos stuff still look that great?

After reading this thread, there sure are many interpretations of what good art is. The "you're opinion, my opinion and the right opinion".
And thanks. I saw Masquas work. They're awesome. All of them. To point out a favorite is impossible. But the first i did click on, was the "blue water" paint. It got me curious. another person's choice would be different.

These and the one's in the OP are to different to compare. Each with their own unique style. And as music already has been brought up. Also an never ending discussion is guitar players. The "best" is it the one who pulls out lots of notes in a split of a secund ? Or is it the one that plays less notes ?
Talk about values. For some people, a piece of bread and water means the whole world to them. For others, a Paris Hilton handback. Not to me. I can't get exited over a handbag. A beautiful flower. Yes. Why the one is above the other, is something you can't explain. As the art in the OP. That feeling, and it's not about signature. Just looking at them, with no thoughts... Well i don't think you can push people to feel something. Either it gets to you, or it don't. I respect people who think Brad Pitt is amazing. Well i don't. But that does not mean he's a bad actor. Just i have other favorites.

Talk about money...Is this art in the OP worth all that money ? I do wonder, what if same art was sold on action and the amount of money went direct to Haiti ? Would that make any difference ? Would people care less for the art itself ? And the important, would people not agree, that in this case the value of this painting, should be as high as possible ?

I'm asking this, because last month the danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard offered a piece of his work to a charity auction for victims of the Haitian earthquake. I believe that in this case, a "stripe on a piece of canvas" would not matter a thing. Any thoughts ?

what so many people who will try to justify the huge price tag of these works of art fail to mention is one of the biggest things of all.

no one can say that it's wrong for someone else to look at a stripe and find it pleasing on the eyes or evocative, but when the work of art is so incredible easy to recreate, why would anyone pay serious money for it other than to show off to others or convince themselves how self-important they are?

i can look at a blank, red and black striped canvas and finds all sorts of cool imagery and find it nice on the eyes, but i won't pay thousands or millions for it if i want it so badly, i'll do it myself or have it recreated unofficially for 1/1000000 of the price. as for criticising those who will pay such money for a few stripes, sure they can do with their money what they like, but when there are people living in such desperate poverty across the world it already feels obscene enough to spend millions on a painting, but to spend that on one which can be recreated for probably little more than the price of the canvas is frankly disturbing. there is no real defense for it. the real question is if the same piece of artwork had been done by an unknown artist, would it still get sold for anything, let alone a lot? no, because fundamentally this artwork is tat. it shows no real creativity, no skill, nothing unique, nothing remarkable, only someone who's clearly exploiting the easiest possible way to get rich.

ask any prospective artist how easily they can sell their work for a lot of money and they will almost all probably tell you that nobody is interested, galleries won't even take their work. all the while someone who is famous produces something of no more (or sometimes less) ability and creativity and suddenly it's worth something. they are paying for the name, not the art, because it can be easily recreated. as soon as you start paying for the name you probably miss half the artistic quality that may be there in the first place which sort of undermines any suggestion that you find the artwork particularly good even.

when my brother asked the local (small) gallery if he could have some of his artwork displayed, he was told not unless he has had his artwork already displayed in galleries before. since when does having it in a gallery before prove that it's any better than artwork which wasn't? also how is he supposed to ever get it in a gallery when all the galleries tell him they need to previously have been in one? he has to start SOMEWHERE.

it's ironic really. art is supposed to be about expression, genious, ideas, talent, profundity, depth, imagery and meaning. it's pretty funny that the modern art world is one of the most shallow industries of them all. i'm not saying that all modern art is rubbish. go to the tate modern in london on any given day and you will likely find (amongst the tat) countless things which really catch your eye, were highly creative, or simply evoke feelings and thoughts which allow you to appreciate what you're seeing (whether it's simple or not), but one thing is for sure. a few stripes on a canvas is not worth more than the cost of the paint and canvas, otherwise you're quickly drifting into a world of pointless pretentiousness and utter shallowness.

before i go i want to add that my favourite piece of modern art was something very simple. it was at the tate modern in london about 3 years ago roughly and i'll explain why i thought it was fantastic. it was basically just a big (few inches thick) sheet of black shiny, plastic looking material, a bit warped standing upright in the middle of the room (probably 7 feet tall or so). it was standing up[right and sort of warped around on both sides so you could probably stand inside it with the sides curving a bit around you. as a huge lover of astronomy and space i found it really evocative or space. it was really modern in the clean lines, curvature and the material and it had a very sterile quality to it which gave me imagery of a sort of futuristic environment like i was in a spaceship looking out (at the artwork) into space. it instantly reminded me of the song 'welcome to the machine' by pink floyd- an EXTREMELY cold song which captures better than any other song i have ever heard this feewling of cold, spacey isolation and darkness. i could practically hear the background murmermings of space station-esc equipment just by looking at this artwork.

for all those reasons i LOVED that piece, even though it was very simple. it was like nothing i've seen before and i found it really powerful for me personally. that said if i had billions of pounds and had an option to buy it for 1 million i wouldn't go anywhere near that price. unlike a stripe of paint it is something i find really interesting and creative and i would say the artist deserves to be paid reasonably for his work here, so i would say it's worth 800 pounds roughly considering covering the cost for the strange material he worked with and his time and work. however if someone else got in a bidding war with me, i'd simply let them win and have someone recreate a replica for the cheapest reasonably possible. it is the ART which matters, not the prestige of saying i have enough money to pay for it.

just thought i would share that nice experience with you guys, maybe someone else knows of the piece i'm referring to and has an opinion on it?

reply to post by Renegade Bison


It is a nasty business getting into galleries, I know. The best way forward is to put work into group shows that cater to amateur artists. Then there are 'Art in the Park' shows where you have to pay for a booth and even then there is still a panel which wants the right to say no to you.

It's not an easy thing to break into.

Galleries are only interested in the cut. They usually ask anywhere up to ~40% of the selling price and are not into giving anyone a break. When going into such a place to ask if they'd be willing to hang, you'd better have a few paintings to show right then and there. No websites or photographs will do.

They'll usually hang them under a set of track lighting, muse about the merits and flaws, but in reality, they are only thinking one thing... how much should it be listed for and WILL IT SELL!

If the work is, in their estimation, worth ~$1000 and their cut would be, say $350, there still would remain that final judgement in their heads. If they decide it wouldn't sell, then they'd rather not waste wall space on it.

reply to post by piddles



the definition of fine art, is an art on itself.
it will alway`s be different in time.


[edit on 15-2-2010 by telfyr]

Van Gogh, the patron saint of misunderstood artists, never sold a picture in his life and his brother was a dealer!!

Also I would guess that not a lot of people have had the experience of living with artistic masterworks on a day to day basis in the privacy of your home. It is very different from jogging through a museum.

I think a great starting point for beginners is to realize that all art is abstraction as mentioned earlier in this thread. That is a first step.

It is said that once a realist philosopher went to see the famous painter, Picasso. The philosopher believed in realism and he had come to criticize Picasso because Picasso's paintings are abstract, they are not realistic. They don't depict reality as it is. On the contrary, they are symbolic, have a totally different dimension – they are symbolistic.The realist said, "I don't like your paintings. A painting should be real! If you paint my wife, then your painting should look like my wife." And he took out a picture of his wife and said, "Look at this picture! The painting should be like this."Picasso looked at the picture and said, "This is your wife?"He said, "Yes, this is my wife!" Picasso said, "I am surprised! She is very small and flat."

If someone pays tens of millions of dollars for "art" like these samples, there is a reason for it.
It has nothing to do with "it spoke to me" (it said BUY ME?).
If money laundering or some other financial shenanigans are not the motivating reason, then what?
Investment. Expectations that the price would go up?
Ego. All of the cool, ultra-rich, Saudi's have at least one...
General Snobbery. The fact that YOU do not understand it just goes to show YOU do not understand ART!
Oh, I understand all right...
Trash. A few dollars worth of oil on a few dollars worth of canvas multiplied thousands of times by one of the above.

Originally posted by Stewie
Trash. A few dollars worth of oil on a few dollars worth of canvas multiplied thousands of times by one of the above.

In many cases it's probably acrylic paint.

PS: is it paint or ink, in this case? I always get confused.

[edit on 15/2/2010 by ArMaP]

reply to post by Skyfloating

But there is also the type of art-art that strikes me to the core, with no effort on my side needed.
I know, I know "thats what I should be looking for".
Maybe Im just trying to understand those who see tremendous genius value in two stripes.

Well, this is the point: if you see a Rothko up close, you'll realise that it isn't 2 stripes, but a rich texture of colour interaction that looks like 2 stripes when miniaturised or seen from a distance. In the same way that a Turner can look like a garish 70s poster...
The 1st time I saw a Rothko original, I was 17, tagging along with older mates. I had no real idea what we were going to look at. At 1st glance, I was decidedly underwhelmed! Only when we got close & could sit in front of it to just stare did I get it. It did strike me to the core. I'm so happy that Tate Modern has its Rothko Room. I check in almost everytime I'm in London. Oh, & they also have Jackson Pollock's "Summertime" & if any of you really believe that the paint on that canvass was just randomly thrown on, I urge you to see the original, or a least a decent sized print.
Sky, as I said above, diving into Dada might not be such a good plan, unless you feel like you've already got a good grasp of art history & crucially, how that history relates to what has ended up as a finished piece. Even then, its difficult to say the least! Pick some piece & research it, I'd recommend.

Here is art. Is it a masterpiece? Hardly. Is it talent? I'd like to think so. Art 1
Art 2

Make your own decisions.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Idiocy?

:-)

why so insulting?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3109ed908a5a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/753fdc1f5635.jpg[/atsimg]
Piet Mondrian - both
en.wikipedia.org...

_______________________________

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/004e13431d77.jpg[/atsimg]

is it only beautiful if you can recognize what it is? :-)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43e95a61be91.jpg[/atsimg]

_______________________________

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fbc068206f68.jpg[/atsimg]

you don't have to like him Sky - I can like him enough for the both of us

things are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them - I would never buy a car

and with art - much as it is with owls - things are not always what they seem

:-)